TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consequential relief(s); (b) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3.1 Brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are summarized below. The appellant M/s M Y Impex, Mumbai is a proprietorship firm; Shri Mohamed Sajid Mohamed Yasin Ansari is the proprietor of the said firm. They had obtained Import-Export Code (IEC) DBAPM9281F from Licensing/ Regional Authority (RA), Mumbai of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) on 08.09.2023 for transacting import/export transactions, since the same is a mandatory requirement under Paragraph 1.13 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). On 23.09.2023 through a general power of attorney executed by the said Shri Mohamed Sajid Mahamed Yasin Ansari, proprietor of appellant firm inter alia, he appointed one Shri Asif Aziz Daravesh as his power of attorney holder for conducting the activity of import of all kinds of 'Dry Dates' (Wet & Dried), all kinds of food stuff to be purchased from any foreign country as per the power attorney holder's wish, on a profit sharing arrangement of 5% for Shri Mohamed Sajid Mahamed Yasin Ansari and 95% for Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riginated from Karachi, Pakistan and the goods were de-stuffed and again restuffed in order to bypass the prohibition imposed by the Government on import of goods from Pakistan origin, in terms of DGFT Notification No.06/2025-2026 dated 02.05.2025. Therefore, the imported goods were seized under seizure memo dated 06.10.2025. 3.4 The appellant filed writ petition No.33335/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay on 07.10.2025, which was registered on 09.10.2025, in which they prayed for the following: "In the circumstances aforesaid, the Petitioner prays: a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the impugned actions carried out by the Respondents are in complete and gross abuse of the powers conferred under the Act and serious action needs to be taken against the concerned officers for having caused harassment and loss to the Petitioner without any basis whatsoever. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to award appropriate compensatory costs /compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the belatedly issued Seizure Memo, Exhibit "L" dated 06.10.2025 is in complete a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eline would be provided for either commencing or completing the adjudication proceedings. He also claimed that the Petitioner is not cooperating in the matter. Mr. Kantawala denies this allegation of non-cooperation. 8. Thus, it is apparent that the Petitioner's suggestion about the sale of the goods by the Customs Authorities or reexport of the goods is not acceptable to the Customs Authorities. No timeline is also being provided for the commencement of the adjudication proceedings or their conclusion. 9. Mr Mishra also pointed out that it is open to the Petitioner to represent to the Government of India, in light of Notification No. 6/2025-2026 dated 02 May 2025. Mr Mishra is unable to state whether such a representation, if made, would be decided within a reasonable period. He now states that he is not appearing for the Union of India, i.e. the Director General of Foreign Trade. He raises objections to the maintainability of this petition and the locus standi of the petitioner. 10. In short, the petitioner's request that the customs authorities sell the perishable dates and retain the amounts received until the adjudication concludes is unacceptable to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ructions, fairly seeks leave to withdraw this Petition. 3. Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn. 4. At this stage Mr. Kantawala would submit that the goods have been seized, he requests that all rights and contentions of the Petitioner in regard to making any application for sale or realization of the value of the goods be kept open. We accept the request, if so permissible in law. 5. Disposed of as withdrawn. No costs." 3.8 On 09.07.2026, the learned Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur had passed an order in respect of application dated 08.06.2026 submitted by the appellant seeking provisional release of seized goods. In the said order it was stated by him that the subject imported goods are prima facie 'prohibited goods' within the meaning of Section 2(33) ibid read with the DGFT Notification No.06/2025-26 dated 02.05.2025 and considering the collusive and fraudulent nature of import transaction, national security dimensions, the request for provisional release of goods was rejected. Feeling aggrieved with such order, the appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant during the hearing had submitted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the case in Union of India Vs. Make India Impex in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 31205 of 2025 for issue of SCN and to adjudicate the matter. 5.3 Special Counsel for Revenue vehemently argued that in the present appeal filed for provisional release of goods, the grounds of issue of show cause notice (SCN) beyond six months' time involving seizure of goods, whether proper or not cannot be raised, as it is entirely a different ground and such issue has already attained finality inasmuch as the appellant had not preferred any appeal during the three months' time allowed upon communication of the decision taken in extending the time for issue of SCN, on recording the reasons therefor, as required under the customs statute. Therefore, he prayed that the appeal preferred by the appellant be dismissed and the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue be allowed. 6. We have heard both the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special Counsel of the Department appearing for Revenue and perused the case records along with written synopsis and case laws relied upon by both sides. 7. At the inception, we make it clear that in terms of the legal pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of Section 111(d) and 111(m) ibid read with DGFT Notification No.06/2025-26 dated 02.05.2025 prohibiting direct import or indirect import or transit, of all goods in the interest of national security and public policy. Accordingly, these imported goods have been seized on a reasonable belief that they are liable for confiscation under Section 110 ibid and upon conducting detailed investigation requisite show cause notice is to be issued within the specified time limit prescribed in terms of Section 124 ibid. Further, the adjudicating authority shall proceed to adjudge the case involving confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties etc., in terms of Section 122 ibid duly giving persons concerned/noticees an opportunity for personal hearing and following the principles of natural justice. 9.1 On examination of the facts of the case, we find that the imported goods were seized on 06.10.2025 vide Seizure Memo dated 06.10.2025; investigation was conducted by DRI and in the meantime, the appellant-importer was informed about the extension of time-limit for issue of SCN on 25.02.2026; and the SCN was issued on 12.08.2026. Therefore, we find that the due process for issue of SCN ....